Oh, Chevy Chase (DC affordable housing)!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live a few blocks from the proposed site and read the listserve regularly. Granted the listserve may not be a fully accurate representation of how neighbors feel, but the article’s claim that “Most residents agree the site needs to be updated, but the addition of affordable housing has proved divisive” Is absolutely misleading in the most unfair, nasty and self-serving way. That is not at all the way people in the neighborhood feel. What we are sensing is that the city is hiding behind a purported objective of increasing the number of affordable housing to give giveaways to developers, and, in the process, sacrificing the existing positive attributes of the site (mainly open space). The key here is how many affordable units will the neighborhood actually get in exchange for a massive building on the community center site. My understanding is that in practice we will only get a handful. So why don’t we just build those few affordable units and not build the remaining luxury units that the developers salivate over (or build fewer of them) and keep the open space instead? That’s the approach that would satisfy me at least.

Because selling the luxury units is what pays for the construction of the affordable units. That’s the model. And it creates a mixed income building, which people think improves the likelihood that it will maintain itself. What you’re describing is a housing project.

Exactly which is why I suggested building fewer of them, not none at all. How about we bid the project out, establish a minimum number of affordable units that must be included and see which developer is willing to take the project on with the least massive building? Tell my why something like this wouldn’t work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That would be a great location for affordable housing. It has easy access to transportation and amenities.

Affordable housing does not = homeless. I know a public defender who got into the properties at City Center.

But there is no way to only get the “good” low-to-mid income people. If there was, no one would be objecting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That would be a great location for affordable housing. It has easy access to transportation and amenities.

Affordable housing does not = homeless. I know a public defender who got into the properties at City Center.

But there is no way to only get the “good” low-to-mid income people. If there was, no one would be objecting.

Just wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live a few blocks from the proposed site and read the listserve regularly. Granted the listserve may not be a fully accurate representation of how neighbors feel, but the article’s claim that “Most residents agree the site needs to be updated, but the addition of affordable housing has proved divisive” Is absolutely misleading in the most unfair, nasty and self-serving way. That is not at all the way people in the neighborhood feel. What we are sensing is that the city is hiding behind a purported objective of increasing the number of affordable housing to give giveaways to developers, and, in the process, sacrificing the existing positive attributes of the site (mainly open space). The key here is how many affordable units will the neighborhood actually get in exchange for a massive building on the community center site. My understanding is that in practice we will only get a handful. So why don’t we just build those few affordable units and not build the remaining luxury units that the developers salivate over (or build fewer of them) and keep the open space instead? That’s the approach that would satisfy me at least.

Because selling the luxury units is what pays for the construction of the affordable units. That’s the model. And it creates a mixed income building, which people think improves the likelihood that it will maintain itself. What you’re describing is a housing project.

Exactly which is why I suggested building fewer of them, not none at all. How about we bid the project out, establish a minimum number of affordable units that must be included and see which developer is willing to take the project on with the least massive building? Tell my why something like this wouldn’t work.

Isn’t what you’re describing exactly the process that’s in place? It says it’s a five story building, and keeps the community center. That sounds perfectly reasonable.

[Anonymous]

Why would anyone want affordable housing In their rich neighborhood.

Way back around 1993 my brothers rich white neighborhood a developer got permission to convert a closed elementary school to much needs affordable housing. He and town got the vote by saying the elderly can’t afford to keep homes in retirement in the towns they raised their kids, children of homeowners can’t afford to stay in town they grew up in. Preference was given middle or lower income people who already lived in town.

Two or three years later the lawsuits started. Complex mainly white and some Asian as that was demographics of town. Was a rental property with a long waiting list.

Well the lawsuit won and low income black and Hispanics from other towns won right to be next on list. Slowly from 1998-2023 became a dump of low income section 8 type people right in middle of town.

The kids can’t afford to stay in town they grew up on and retirees still forced to leave town

[Anonymous]

Chevy Chase needs its own building dept and be an incorporated village with its own mayor

The left wing radicals in DC and MoCo are pushing an agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live a few blocks from the proposed site and read the listserve regularly. Granted the listserve may not be a fully accurate representation of how neighbors feel, but the article’s claim that “Most residents agree the site needs to be updated, but the addition of affordable housing has proved divisive” Is absolutely misleading in the most unfair, nasty and self-serving way. That is not at all the way people in the neighborhood feel. What we are sensing is that the city is hiding behind a purported objective of increasing the number of affordable housing to give giveaways to developers, and, in the process, sacrificing the existing positive attributes of the site (mainly open space). The key here is how many affordable units will the neighborhood actually get in exchange for a massive building on the community center site. My understanding is that in practice we will only get a handful. So why don’t we just build those few affordable units and not build the remaining luxury units that the developers salivate over (or build fewer of them) and keep the open space instead? That’s the approach that would satisfy me at least.

Subsidized housing resident here. So that’s what they propose.
In this case, at least where I live, the prices will still be pretty steep (rent) and the application process is cumbersome so it will weed out the weirdos

[Anonymous]

Yeah, the article is a hit job meant to make the neighborhood look bad. It should be fair to ask effected officials questions like:

How exactly will the community center and library be build out?

What amenities will be provided?

Will there be any green space left reserved?

Will there be a playground?

Will there still be a basketball/pickleball corurt?

Why can’t the city pay to develop these city owned resources which are available to and used by city-wide residents now?

Is this the best location to add housing when there are numerous other housing projects in flight nearby and many currently available units in the neighborhood?

But of course, when you ask questions like that you get slammed as racist and anti-affordable housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, the article is a hit job meant to make the neighborhood look bad. It should be fair to ask effected officials questions like:

How exactly will the community center and library be build out?

What amenities will be provided?

Will there be any green space left reserved?

Will there be a playground?

Will there still be a basketball/pickleball corurt?

Why can’t the city pay to develop these city owned resources which are available to and used by city-wide residents now?

Is this the best location to add housing when there are numerous other housing projects in flight nearby and many currently available units in the neighborhood?

But of course, when you ask questions like that you get slammed as racist and anti-affordable housing.

You do get to ask those questions. There’s a whole democratic system of government whereby you get to influence the answers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That would be a great location for affordable housing. It has easy access to transportation and amenities.

Affordable housing does not = homeless. I know a public defender who got into the properties at City Center.

But there is no way to only get the “good” low-to-mid income people. If there was, no one would be objecting.

Just wow.

Not pp but it’s true

[Anonymous]

CCDC resident here. First off, most of DC was segregated in the early 1900s when CCDC was established. Yes, they wanted to keep other people out. This was the norm, however disgusting. I don't get the argument singling out CC.

Second, when I was in my early 20s, I was broke and made virtually nothing starting my career. Had I not had the option of low-priced housing I wouldn't have been able to live in a safe neighborhood within a reasonable distance from my job downtown, which was extremely demanding and required long hours.

Fast forward 15 years. I live in a $2 million house a few blocks from where they're proposing this building. I have no doubt developers couldn't care less about people like me, and wouldn't set aside low-priced units if not required to do so, but luckily it will be a requirement. They should be required to also build a new community center and library in that footprint (it can be done).

Hopefully another kid will get the lucky break I did, exactly when they need it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, the article is a hit job meant to make the neighborhood look bad. It should be fair to ask effected officials questions like:

How exactly will the community center and library be build out?

What amenities will be provided?

Will there be any green space left reserved?

Will there be a playground?

Will there still be a basketball/pickleball corurt?

Why can’t the city pay to develop these city owned resources which are available to and used by city-wide residents now?

Is this the best location to add housing when there are numerous other housing projects in flight nearby and many currently available units in the neighborhood?

But of course, when you ask questions like that you get slammed as racist and anti-affordable housing.

You do get to ask those questions. There’s a whole democratic system of government whereby you get to influence the answers.

This is exactly what ChCh residents are up in arms. The existence of some kind of process in no way ensures that we will like the outcomes. We feel like the city will end up doing whatever they want no matter the opposition. And on top of everything we’ll be vilified for being “racist”.

[Anonymous]

My old town the residents incorporated and vis eminent domain bought buildings being converted for shady use and converted them to green space.

We also changed building codes to be SFH only and banned all new commercial construction. We did it 1982 to around 2020. Now getting to expensive. Developers only care about cashing out and we did pay market value.
Outer Potomac with two acre zoning and no commercial property kept the DC Sludge out it is a good model

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, the article is a hit job meant to make the neighborhood look bad. It should be fair to ask effected officials questions like:

How exactly will the community center and library be build out?

What amenities will be provided?

Will there be any green space left reserved?

Will there be a playground?

Will there still be a basketball/pickleball corurt?

Why can’t the city pay to develop these city owned resources which are available to and used by city-wide residents now?

Is this the best location to add housing when there are numerous other housing projects in flight nearby and many currently available units in the neighborhood?

But of course, when you ask questions like that you get slammed as racist and anti-affordable housing.

You do get to ask those questions. There’s a whole democratic system of government whereby you get to influence the answers.

This is exactly what ChCh residents are up in arms. The existence of some kind of process in no way ensures that we will like the outcomes. We feel like the city will end up doing whatever they want no matter the opposition. And on top of everything we’ll be vilified for being “racist”.

Once again, you are trying to speak for everyone who lives in CCDC, and are also suggesting that all are in agreement with *your* views. I don't know anyone in the neighborhood who is "up in arms" about the proposed development. In my opinion, there has been a lot of irrational fear-mongering coming from a small group of households opposed to the development. Why should a subset of residents have such great influence in the matter?

[Anonymous]

What is all this talk about green space? I have never seen any green space around the existing CCDC community center. Unless you count the crummy little playground with the boarded-up slide as green space.